Do we have another property crash coming?

Hollister11

With Dublin booming again, and with construction happening, when do people think house prices will come crashing back down.
5, 10 even 15 years?

Personally on between 5-10 would suit me.

L1011

I suspect that the mortgage rules, the rapidly increasing difficulty of getting planning as well as higher standards both required and expected in construction means there's more chance of the "soft landing" happening this time. Further supply will start to push prices down purely because that'll be the only way to sell them.

Chuchote

Yes. Houses on my road have doubled in price. Insanity. How can people earn enough to pay a mortgage in these circumstances? House and apartment prices need to be tied to wages or you get a dangerous inflation spiral.

seamus

No, the same conditions don't exist this time. There isn't an abundance of credit flooding the market nor a tonne of investors (foreign or domestic) pouring their cash into property.

This is purely demand driven and prices will begin to level off once supply catches up. Second-hand homes in lower demand areas will likely see flat or slightly negative drops for ~5 years after supply has caught up.

That's assuming no future government makes the mistake of a major intervention into the market. If that happens, all bets are off.

Barely Hedged

Hollister11 wrote: »

With Dublin booming again, and with construction happening, when do people think house prices will come crashing back down.
5, 10 even 15 years?

Personally on between 5-10 would suit me.

Crashing back down to what?

TENHNY

I think the property market wouldn't drop much in the next five, It may become staggant as people struggle to get mortgages. I do think do the economy is in for a tumble, With rising health & Motor insurance a failing health system,
upwards rents, lack of jobs & no incentive to employers to hire. Once you drive out from the bigger cities and towns you see there really noting happen and no plans to help boast smaller towns.

goz83

While the same conditions don't exist this time around, there is already hugely inflated prices. Yes' getting a mortgage is harder now, but memory is short and the same mistakes will be made. When people can't afford homes, government is pressured, banks start handing out money like it's on fire and we get another boom bust. I call 2018 for a crash

Sleeper12

Hollister11 wrote:

With Dublin booming again, and with construction happening, when do people think house prices will come crashing back down. 5, 10 even 15 years?

Hollister11 wrote:

Personally on between 5-10 would suit me.

They have to go up higher in price if you expect to see a fall. They won't be falling from the level that they are now.
Historically we don't usually get bubbles. Usually house prices slow down & pick up again. Just because we had one property crash in the history of the state doesn't mean it's the norm.
Outside forces like britex are an unknown

ThisRegard

Chuchote wrote: »

Yes. Houses on my road have doubled in price. Insanity. How can people earn enough to pay a mortgage in these circumstances? House and apartment prices need to be tied to wages or you get a dangerous inflation spiral.

If they came from a low base a doubling might just be a correction what part of the country? If people are getting mortgages for them, they've gone through stress tests and a much stricter approval process. Rents for the most part, in Dublin anyway, are more expensive than the mortgage payment for the house being rented.

goz83 wrote: »

banks start handing out money like it's on fire

Not a chance.

Stealthfins

Iv a house in a village in Clare which was valued at 280,000 during the height of the Boom.
4 bed detached.
It went down to 140,000 now it's around 159,000.
So more than likely when it hits near that again I may cash in,rent for a year and buy something again when they drop off.

asteroids over berlin

Personal opinion -- no not at all.
Dublin house prices (more so central Dublin and say d1 - 16 areas) will steadily rise. What were once poorer areas, will now be sought after and over the years will transform into nice places to live, naturally there will be a few ropey areas left (usually is) .
Quite a similar trend to London, i doubt prices will go up to such levels but they will definitely get up there. Whilst Brexit may impact us, i see more companies setting roots in Ireland instead of the UK.
Commuter life will be the reality in 10 - 15 years time (it's already in progress). We will see proposals for new motorways and transport systems in general - obviously we are woeful at such planning!

Chuchote

My impression is that the market is being deformed by people buying for cash as investments.
Only way to support home buyers while stopping investment buying is to do something like removing stamp duty if the house is being bought as a family home (but the stamp duty to be paid on it if it is sold within 10 years, and the house/apartment to be liable to compulsory purchase by the State if this rule is abused).

goz83

ThisRegard wrote: »

Not a chance.

Why? If you're not going to give more than that, you don't have an argument.

Banks have never been known to be anything but profiteers (as expected, money and profit is the name of the game) and they are governed by greed, rather than long term sustainability and prudent lending. If they are allowed to lend and the belief is that the numbers will stack in their favour, they will lend, even if a few loans turn bad. Foolish lending pushes up prices and then...well, look a few years back. Already, the rules are being bent to accommodate first time buyers buying new homes. It's just another step in the wrong direction.

Oh and just for full disclosure....higher prices would suit me just fine, taking my mortgage out of NE and making it possible for me to sell/move, but I am against the culture of greed and high prices and mortgages for life.

A couple of months ago, I made a general enquiry about moving to a larger home, which is/was 100k more expensive than my mortgage. I was offering to cover the difference in the property value in cash, but the new rules currently disallow people in my situation (people looking to upgrade and who have children) to move. According to the bank, we are way below the poverty line and should not be "surviving" on our income :pac:

The mortgage advisor/bank manager couldn't defend the rules and said they are far removed from reality. There would have been no material change in our payments and there would have been a higher value property on the books, but the rules stopped any progression, because our earnings were not high enough on paper when you take into account our children. This despite never missing a mortgage payment in 8 years. I suspect if I ask in a years time, the answer will be different.

It's this blunt, uninsightful attitude from the top that makes me confident that we will indeed see another crash and soon. I am a baby boomer of the early to mid 80's. There were similar numbers born in the late 80's who will now, or soon be looking for their own home, especially after returning from their jobless exiles after college. When prices are too high for them, there will be interference. Then we will have another 5-7 years of recession followed by another slow increase of what I hope would be sustainable growth in prices.

I'm not an expert, but from what I have absorbed in the last few years, this is my opinion.

Graham

goz83 wrote: »

Why?

Central bank rules.

goz83 wrote: »

The mortgage advisor/bank manager couldn't defend the rules and said they are far removed from reality. There would have been no material change in our payments and there would have been a higher value property on the books, but the rules stopped any progression, because our earnings were not high enough on paper when you take into account our children. This despite never missing a mortgage payment in 8 years.

Some people would call that prudent lending and may even go as far as suggesting if this approach had been enforced 15 years ago the property bubble wouldn't have been anywhere near as devastating.

Terrlock

I think what we have if much worse then a simple crash.

What we have is everyday people not being able to afford accommodation.

Rent prices are crazy....Unless you have an extremely well paid job, it's likely most of your income is going to pay rent and bills.

No one has the luxury of being able to save money in these circumstances...or it can take a very long time. As a result they can't get a mortgage for there own homes where the monthly payments would be lower then rental.

We don't really have a government that is in any hurry to help fix the problems.

We have more and more people becoming homeless.

No one cares until it effects them and people they care about.

I think we are running head first with eyes closed into very bad times.

FrancieBrady

Graham wrote: »

Central bank rules.



Some people would call that prudent lending and may even go as far as suggesting if this approach had been enforced 15 years ago the property bubble wouldn't have been anywhere near as devastating.

Did Colm McCarthy not say on Claire Whatshername show last night that with the budget measures taken into account that we are back to borrowers being able to get unsustainable loans again?
He seemed quite animated about it.

*Caveat, I did get to hear the whole exchange with Simon Coveney.

alane20

seamus wrote:

No, the same conditions don't exist this time. There isn't an abundance of credit flooding the market nor a tonne of investors (foreign or domestic) pouring their cash into property.

How can you say there isn't tons of investors flooding the market when vulture funds are buying whole estates & apartment blocks, there will absolutely be another crash, property to irish people is like a drug, a get rich quick scheme, intrest rates can not stay at current levels, and when they rise the amount of defaults will be huge, and the vultures will pick the market clean,

Graham

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did Colm McCarthy not say on Claire Whatshername show last night that with the budget measures taken into account that we are back to borrowers being able to get unsustainable loans again?
He seemed quite animated about it.

*Caveat, I did get to hear the whole exchange with Simon Coveney.

Can't say I watched it. I'd be interested in the 'unsustainable loans' discussion as that's something I'd expect the current central bank rules to limit.

Atlantic Dawn

The lack of available properties is keeping prices up as there's enough land within the M50 to build over a million homes but there's not the access to cash for builders to build them.

FrancieBrady

Graham wrote: »

Can't say I watched it. I'd be interested in the 'unsustainable loans' discussion as that's something I'd expect the current central bank rules to limit.

About 25 minutes in, in response to the landlord in the audience.

Interesting segment overall.

*Only in Ireland would the minister for housing be called SIMON.
http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/claire-byrne-live-extras-30003215/10637487/

ThisRegard

goz83 wrote: »

Why?

Answered below, plus the fact that banks were pretty strict before the central bank rules came in anyway, they don't want to loan and be at risk of not getting their cash back. Even if they are greedy and profiteers, such a place is not going to loan to anything other than a sure thing are they, especially with the bankruptcy changes.

Graham wrote: »

Central bank rules.

alane20 wrote: »

How can you say there isn't tons of investors flooding the market when vulture funds are buying whole estates & apartment blocks, there will absolutely be another crash, property to irish people is like a drug, a get rich quick scheme, intrest rates can not stay at current levels, and when they rise the amount of defaults will be huge, and the vultures will pick the market clean,

Banks currently stress test applicants based on such scenarios, I can't remember the percentage rise they stress you at, some are tougher than others.

Right2Write

I think a good policy would be to disincentive the 'casual' buy to let people. The average Irish person who thinks they will invest in a property as a pension etc. or as a better return than savings or other investments. These people have a negative impact overall without contributing much.

Rental property is certainly needed but should be left to people and businesses who run it as their primary business. This would lead I believe, to (1) accommodation being purchased by people who actually want to live there and (2) greater stability in both supply of rental properties and rents.

Time to get rid of those trying to make a quick killing at the expense of others.

Graham

Right2Write wrote: »

I think a good policy would be to disincentive the 'casual' buy to let people.

I think you'll find the current tax rules, RTB, eviction process are already doing that job.

+1 on encouraging large-scale, long-term commercial landlords.

Eric Cartman

Theres somewhat of a soft crash on the way. When prices reach almost boom levels and banks/landlords/funds can dump all their rentals / BTL's without losing money on the outstanding mortgage , they will. There are thousands of properties in this country that accidental landlords, banks and investment funds want rid of, but the stubborn irish wouldnt take a 50k hit on a property if it killed them. This flood of property will upset the market temporarily and set back developpers getting funding.

Cuddlesworth

Terrlock wrote: »

No one has the luxury of being able to save money in these circumstances...or it can take a very long time. As a result they can't get a mortgage for there own homes where the monthly payments would be lower then rental.

There is a substantial number of mid thirtys couples in Dublin with 6 figure combined incomes and deposits.

Right2Write

Right2Write wrote: »

I think a good policy would be to disincentive the 'casual' buy to let people. The average Irish person who thinks they will invest in a property as a pension etc. or as a better return than savings or other investments. These people have a negative impact overall without contributing much.

Rental property is certainly needed but should be left to people and businesses who run it as their primary business. This would lead I believe, to (1) accommodation being purchased by people who actually want to live there and (2) greater stability in both supply of rental properties and rents.

Time to get rid of those trying to make a quick killing at the expense of others.

Anywhere that property businesses are taking over people are complaining about it like crazy, both people living there and certain populist politicians in the AAA etc. A business that takes over a complex and ups the rent to market rate as is their right and their job as a business to maximise profits is branded like some Nazi sympathiser in the media etc.

riclad

i read an article yesterday people who own land are waiting till
2019 to sell it to avoid paying cgt tax.
I Think high taxs and lack of finance is more a problem for builders than lack of acess to land .outside dublin house prices have hardly gone up so i don,t see a crash coming .the casual buy to let investor hardly exists since its harder to get a loan under existing bank lending rules .

listermint

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

There is a substantial number of mid thirtys couples in Dublin with 6 figure combined incomes and deposits.

I dont think that is entirely true either. Those same couples are tied up with high rents etc. 'Substantial' would be over cooking it.

'Some' would be more accurate those some having gotten assistance from family etc.

riclad

riclad wrote: »

.outside dublin house prices have hardly gone up .

This couldn't be further from the truth, house prices have gone up significantly outside of Dublin also.

listermint

Tessa Tangy Plumbing wrote: »

Anywhere that property businesses are taking over people are complaining about it like crazy, both people living there and certain populist politicians in the AAA etc. A business that takes over a complex and ups the rent to market rate as is their right and their job as a business to maximise profits is branded like some Nazi sympathiser in the media etc.

Ehhh, what ?

Outside of your obvious rant. You dont think in the current market it would be a reasonable idea not to incentivise buy to lets ? really ?

Oh and what do the Nazis have to do with property... Some strange people in this forum. Is someone feeling victimised ?

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Ehhh, what ?

Outside of your obvious rant. You dont think in the current market it would be a reasonable idea not to incentivise buy to lets ? really ?

Oh and what do the Nazis have to do with property... Some strange people in this forum. Is someone feeling victimised ?

No idea what your getting at here you have totally missed what I was talking about.

I was simply pointing out that you have people complaining about people who are buy to let LLs and saying they want big property companies in the rental sector and then when big companies come in people go crazy complaining about them and how they are operating you know, like a business and looking for market rent etc. Point being people complain no matter what. As for the nazi comment, have you seen the headlines in papers about property companies raising rent etc, you would swear they were murdering people in their homes.

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with people wanting to own one or two investment properties as a side business etc once they do it properly but that's not really what I was taking about in my post above.

Lucena

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The lack of available properties is keeping prices up as there's enough land within the M50 to build over a million homes but there's not the access to cash for builders to build them.

There might physically be space to plonk down a million homes, but you would also need to put in tonnes of infrastructure such as roads, water pipes, waste water pipes, electricity etc.
You would then need to establish all the necessary facilities, (schools, hospitals etc.). Deal with extra road and public transport traffic etc.

Then of course there are areas one shouldn't build in such as flood plains, and of course urbanisation will increase surface water run-off and increase flood risks downstream.

Taking all that into consideration, there maybe isn't that much land available, unless you go high-density i.e. more high-rises.

koheim

listermint wrote: »

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

There is a substantial number of mid thirtys couples in Dublin with 6 figure combined incomes and deposits.

I dont think that is entirely true either. Those same couples are tied up with high rents etc. 'Substantial' would be over cooking it.

'Some' would be more accurate those some having gotten assistance from family etc.

You would be surprised...
So in order to get a mortgage you need a permanent full time job, and the average annual salary for a full time worker is 45K. If you are a average couple where both people are working household income is 90K. In Dublin this would be higher.

Graham

riclad wrote: »

i read an article yesterday people who own land are waiting till 2019 to sell it to avoid paying cgt tax.

I spotted that too, hold the land for 7 years (expiring 2019/2020) to avail of the CGT tax breaks.

It would be really interesting to know how much land is bottlenecked because of this.

seamus

alane20 wrote: »

How can you say there isn't tons of investors flooding the market when vulture funds are buying whole estates & apartment blocks, there will absolutely be another crash, property to irish people is like a drug, a get rich quick scheme, intrest rates can not stay at current levels, and when they rise the amount of defaults will be huge, and the vultures will pick the market clean,

Vulture funds for the most part aren't driving any demand. They're not consuming housing stock that would otherwise be available on the main market, and after a short blip the housing they do buy comes back into circulation again.
The previous boom was fuelled by internal and external investors pumping their cash into new housing stock, which is an inflation of demand. The conversion of owner-occupied housing into buy-to-let housing is also a contributor to this issue.

Neither of these things are happening on any large scale at present. Vulture funds could be said to be helping break the supply issue in the market by purchasing distressed (i.e. unsellable) housing stock and reselling it back into the market later on.

Michael D Not Higgins

koheim wrote: »

You would be surprised...
So in order to get a mortgage you need a permanent full time job, and the average annual salary for a full time worker is 45K. If you are a average couple where both people are working household income is 90K. In Dublin this would be higher.

That's far from average. The top 10% of earners in Ireland are on above €75,000.

Two thirds are on less than the average 35.6k, with the median around 32k (full time) and 28.5k (all, including part time). If we allow for two full time workers in Dublin (with a bit of premium for them working in Dublin), you're probably looking around 70k for a household.

Now that means half of the people are making more and half are making less. A big chunk of the half above that line are already home owners, like the previous generation. So the majority of FTBs looking to buy homes are in the lower category with max borrowings in the mid 200s and max house price below 300k.

It's the lower end of the market where the focus should be.

goz83

Graham wrote: »

Central bank rules.

They will change to suit the demands of the day.

Graham wrote: »

Some people would call that prudent lending and may even go as far as suggesting if this approach had been enforced 15 years ago the property bubble wouldn't have been anywhere near as devastating.

And some people would call it what it is....policy of sh1te and nonsense. In my specific case, there was less than zero additional risk, as they would have been getting a higher value asset, in the same locality on their books, funded by cash from the mortgage holder, while receiving the same monthly payments, with no addition, or loss with respect to the mortgage principal.

Graham wrote: »

Can't say I watched it. I'd be interested in the 'unsustainable loans' discussion as that's something I'd expect the current central bank rules to limit.

Well, you said it yourself. So, as above, these can change.

ThisRegard wrote: »

Answered below, plus the fact that banks were pretty strict before the central bank rules came in anyway, they don't want to loan and be at risk of not getting their cash back. Even if they are greedy and profiteers, such a place is not going to loan to anything other than a sure thing are they, especially with the bankruptcy changes.

Really? What Central Bank? The one in Ireland certainly wasn't "back then". I bought at the end of the boom. I was in my "permanent job" about 6 MONTHS earning a basic of 25K plus commission. My wife was a newly qualified teacher but was not permanent and had only a couple of years behind her. I had actually moved jobs before signing the loan agreement and we had 2 kids at the time. Even by the rules back then, we should not have been granted a mortgage of nearly 400k, but we were given one and have been paying it since then.

ThisRegard wrote: »

Banks currently stress test applicants based on such scenarios, I can't remember the percentage rise they stress you at, some are tougher than others.

The stress tests are a loada balls. It's the equivalent of the mandatory Safety Statement for public liability insurance. Yeah, you need the statement, but everyone knows that not even the insurance companies know what's in the detail of the document.

Graham

goz83 wrote: »

And some people would call it what it is....policy of sh1te and nonsense. In my specific case, there was less than zero additional risk, as they would have been getting a higher value asset, in the same locality on their books, funded by cash from the mortgage holder, while receiving the same monthly payments, with no addition, or loss with respect to the mortgage principal.



Well, you said it yourself. So, as above, these can change.



Really? What Central Bank? The one in Ireland certainly wasn't "back then". I bought at the end of the boom. I was in my "permanent job" about 6 MONTHS earning a basic of 25K plus commission. My wife was a newly qualified teacher but was not permanent and had only a couple of years behind her. I had actually moved jobs before signing the loan agreement and we had 2 kids at the time. Even by the rules back then, we should not have been granted a mortgage of nearly 400k, but we were given one and have been paying it since then.

I'm confused, you appear to be suggesting the amount your bank originally loaned you was imprudent/excessive while bemoaning the fact the rules have now been tightened to the point where you can't borrow any more.

As for the current central bank policy/rules, there's no immediate sign they're going to change despite political pressure for such changes.

goz83

goz83 wrote: »

.............

A couple of months ago, I made a general enquiry about moving to a larger home, which is/was 100k more expensive than my mortgage. I was offering to cover the difference in the property value in cash, but the new rules currently disallow people in my situation (people looking to upgrade and who have children) to move. According to the bank, we are way below the poverty line and should not be "surviving" on our income :pac:.............

So that takes you out of the trader upper market, this is an example of why there quite likely won't be another bubble, pre 2007 someone in your situation would have gotten the go ahead.

I'd also suspect the bank weren't 100% confident the €100k you were bringing to the table wasn't a loan of sorts from relatives etc.

ThisRegard

goz83 wrote: »

Really? What Central Bank? The one in Ireland certainly wasn't "back then". I bought at the end of the boom.

But we're not talking about back then though are we? We're talking about now, and I said the banks themselves have been pretty strict anyway without the need for the central bank rules.

goz83 wrote: »

The stress tests are a loada balls. It's the equivalent of the mandatory Safety Statement for public liability insurance. Yeah, you need the statement, but everyone knows that not even the insurance companies know what's in the detail of the document.

I don't really know what you're talking about here.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

I dont think that is entirely true either. Those same couples are tied up with high rents etc. 'Substantial' would be over cooking it.

'Some' would be more accurate those some having gotten assistance from family etc.

You can't state that those couples in their 30s on 6 figure joint salaries with deposits got assistance to be fair, the smell of begrudgery from your post is overwhelming.

seamus

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Now that means half of the people are making more and half are making less. A big chunk of the half above that line are already home owners, like the previous generation. So the majority of FTBs looking to buy homes are in the lower category with max borrowings in the mid 200s and max house price below 300k.

I don't at all disagree with your calculations. But it's worth remembering that the cohort of potential home purchasers will always be skewed towards higher incomes. The lowest income section of the market is serviced by social housing and rent allowance recipients, who will virtually never convert into home owners.

So while I agree that FTBs probably aren't in the top 10% of earners, I would imagine on average they're skewed a bit above the average household income.

athtrasna

OP I find it unsettling that you are hoping for a crash in the knowledge of the devastation that previous crashes have brought on families.

Yes you are eager to get into the market and would like bargains but this thread isn't the first place you've expressed this desire.

The market can't keep going the way it is but I would be happy to never see a crash again. Plateau or dip but no more crashes, too many broken and lost lives.

Michael D Not Higgins

seamus wrote: »

I don't at all disagree with your calculations. But it's worth remembering that the cohort of potential home purchasers will always be skewed towards higher incomes. The lowest income section of the market is serviced by social housing and rent allowance recipients, who will virtually never convert into home owners.

So while I agree that FTBs probably aren't in the top 10% of earners, I would imagine on average they're skewed a bit above the average household income.

Good point but one which I think is equalled by the higher earners in the previous generation which offsets the lower earners in the current generation. I don't know the full breakdown but I'd say most FTBs are clustered close to the median so that's where the analysis and policy should target.

koheim

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

koheim wrote: »

You would be surprised...
So in order to get a mortgage you need a permanent full time job, and the average annual salary for a full time worker is 45K. If you are a average couple where both people are working household income is 90K. In Dublin this would be higher.

That's far from average. The top 10% of earners in Ireland are on above 75,000.

Two thirds are on less than the average 35.6k, with the median around 32k (full time) and 28.5k (all, including part time). If we allow for two full time workers in Dublin (with a bit of premium for them working in Dublin), you're probably looking around 70k for a household.

Now that means half of the people are making more and half are making less. A big chunk of the half above that line are already home owners, like the previous generation. So the majority of FTBs looking to buy homes are in the lower category with max borrowings in the mid 200s and max house price below 300k.

It's the lower end of the market where the focus should be.

Here is the link to CSO confirming that [font=Roboto, sans-serif]Average annual earnings for full-time employees in 2015 were 45,075[/font]
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elca/earningsandlabourcostsannualdata2015/

Michael D Not Higgins

koheim wrote: »

Here is the link to CSO confirming that [font=Roboto, sans-serif]Average annual earnings for full-time employees in 2015 were 45,075[/font]
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elca/earningsandlabourcostsannualdata2015/

That's average not median, which is skewed by higher earners. Not to mention that just doubling an average of all workers to get an average for a household is a bit dodgy for statistics too. I did it for my median as a worst case.

Cuddlesworth

listermint wrote: »

I dont think that is entirely true either. Those same couples are tied up with high rents etc. 'Substantial' would be over cooking it.

'Some' would be more accurate those some having gotten assistance from family etc.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

That's average not median, which is skewed by higher earners. Not to mention that just doubling an average of all workers to get an average for a household is a bit dodgy for statistics too. I did it for my median as a worst case.

Versus how many houses being built/sold? I'm not saying there are huge numbers of 100k+ couples in Dublin. But I am saying there are enough couples in Dublin earning that money to continue driving the prices for the foreseeable future, its not drying up anytime soon.

koheim

The average is the average and that was the number I provided above. My point is that when discussing mortgages it is no point using average OR median salary of ALL people in Ireland. Use ONLY average or median salary of FULL TIME employees, as only these will be able to get a mortgage (with exceptions).

seamus

athtrasna wrote: »

OP I find it unsettling that you are hoping for a crash in the knowledge of the devastation that previous crashes have brought on families.

Well, he may not be aware. If I had been early 20's in 2011/2012 and managed to land a good tech job and put away a significant chunk of savings in the last five years, then another property crash would mean on paper that I could buy a huge house in a nice area with a tiny mortgage.

In reality what I'd be likely unaware of is the fact that in the event of another property crash I'd have trouble getting any kind of mortgage, I'd likely see a drop in salary, or end up being made redundant, and the number of desirable properties on sale would be absolutely tiny because people don't want to or can't afford to sell at low prices.

A property crash doesn't mean houses just become cheap and it becomes party time for those who don't own property. A few people made out like bandits around 2011/2012 when the market began to recover, and they had a good chunk of cash and a steady job. But the vast majority were locked out of the market by the same crash that ruined those who were in it.

Right2Write

Graham wrote: »

I think you'll find the current tax rules, RTB, eviction process are already doing that job. +1 on encouraging large-scale, long-term commercial landlords.

Maybe but there's a 'cute hoor' type of buy to let landlord as well, who views their tenants as cash cows to pay off the mortgage, gain an asset at minimal cost and if it can be done on the QT, no need to declare taxable income etc. These people are a cancer.

Tessa Tangy Plumbing wrote: »

Anywhere that property businesses are taking over people are complaining about it like crazy, both people living there and certain populist politicians in the AAA etc. A business that takes over a complex and ups the rent to market rate as is their right and their job as a business to maximise profits is branded like some Nazi sympathiser in the media etc.

I don't agree. Businesses and large investors who business lies in the rental market are not by and large into ripping people off. It's not in their long term interests. They are much more likely to provide continuity of supply and relatively stable rents.

athtrasna wrote: »

OP I find it unsettling that you are hoping for a crash in the knowledge of the devastation that previous crashes have brought on families.

Yes you are eager to get into the market and would like bargains but this thread isn't the first place you've expressed this desire.

The market can't keep going the way it is but I would be happy to never see a crash again. Plateau or dip but no more crashes, too many broken and lost lives.

Me too, OP comes across someone hoping for a quick killing at the expense of others. If we can succeed as a society at all, we must pull the rug from under these types.

Michael D Not Higgins

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Versus how many houses being built/sold? I'm not saying there are huge numbers of 100k+ couples in Dublin. But I am saying there are enough couples in Dublin earning that money to continue driving the prices for the foreseeable future, its not drying up anytime soon.

This I don't know. It's likely you're correct and current building rates are much lower than high earners in the FTB age group.